Jump to content

Bogus Requirements


TeamBarstool
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

At this point our speculations as to the intended meaning of the statement are only that: speculations. Your speculation isn't worth any more than mine, which is zero.

Love this twist. Speculations are just that, sure. However, Jeremy's statement makes it crystal clear the statement certainly doesn't mean ALRs--no speculation necessary.

We weren't referring to Jeremy's statement. We were referring to this:

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

 

Here you are referring to folks who fail to read (or refuse to comply with) descriptions. That argument has been dismissed long ago.

No, you dismissed it as you can't counter it.

I did counter it. You ignored the counterarguments.

 

Failing to read a description is the fault of the cache hunter, not the cache owner.

 

 

I suspect even you can see the failure in logic in prohibiting folks from logging a legitimate find.

We've already established that your definition of "legitimate" is different from mine. You haven't convinced me that mine is wrong.

 

 

Your answer is to avoid the cache in question, yet many folks have already pointed out this is not always possible with the way they cache.

Failing to read a description is the fault of the cache hunter, not the cache owner.

 

If "the way people cache" is a valid defense for ignoring personal responsibility, then a sudden increase in people who cut down large numbers of trees while hunting ammo cans should support any argument to make things more convenient for them to do so.

 

 

Your counter to that is basically they need to change the way they cache or "tough nuts."

Yes, exactly! People should be willing to either avoid caches they don't like, take responsibility for their choices, stop blaming others for unhappy consequences of their own bad choices ... or tough nuts.

 

 

I think it clear your position is indefensible otherwise you would have been able to come up with valid argument for ALRs and not non-sense about "what's the harm?" Because, really, what's "the harm" in simply asking for an additional activity and not deleting non-compliant logs?

There IS no harm in you asking an ALR cache owner to change their requirement to a request. There's also no harm in that cache owner politely declining.

 

The harm comes when someone insists on imposing that rule on the cache owner. A potentially enjoyable cache is lost. How exactly does an ALR cache hurt you? How does it hurt anyone who chooses not to participate?

 

Your oft-repeated position is that ALRs are harmful to cachers.

 

I repeat:

 

By asking you "what's the harm" in the mere existence of ALR caches, I'm asking you to prove that a person -- any person -- is harmed by the very existence of a cache they can provably avoid. You haven't done so. No one has. I submit to you that it can't be proven.

Link to comment
Adding logging requirements should change the cache type from traditional to puzzle. With a traditional cache, you go to the coords and find the cache. With a puzzle, there are any number of things you must do to find the cache. ALR's fit this description much better.

That's been suggested, and it's a good suggestion. I like it.

 

The definition would have to be reworded, however. That, or a new "ALR" cache type introduced.

Link to comment

Could you explain what is wrong with the Rosa parks analogy? I thought it a pretty accurate one.

 

Your brother stated "you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache."

 

What I got out of his statement is that he feels it is not discrimination because they can avoid the cache.

 

I stated "By that logic, Rosa Parks didn't give the bus driver the power to discriminate against her until she chose to get on that bus"

 

It is the same type of scenario. Rosa knew there were rules against her sitting in that section of the bus. She chose to sit there anyways. Are you seriously implying that she was not discriminated against, or that the discrimination was somehow her fault for not complying with the rule?

Link to comment

My libertarian philosophy leads me to remind you, however, that ALL caching is voluntary, and that you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache.

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that thinking. By that logic, Rosa Parks was not discriminated against until she Chose to get on that bus.

I actually agree with Docapi on this one. Of course, my political bent is not very libertarian.

I agree with Docapi's opinion on his extrapolation of my analogy as well.

 

Denying someone a bus ride because of their race is wrong. That's just my opinion.

 

Denying someone of a find credit because they ignored, accidentally or intentionally, a posted requirement -- one which doesn't violate the guidelines or Terms Of Service -- may be annoying, or may not be the way you'd set up your own cache ... but denying that find credit isn't wrong, and shouldn't be disallowed. That's just my opinion.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
Adding logging requirements should change the cache type from traditional to puzzle. With a traditional cache, you go to the coords and find the cache. With a puzzle, there are any number of things you must do to find the cache. ALR's fit this description much better.

That's been suggested, and it's a good suggestion. I like it.

 

The definition would have to be reworded, however. That, or a new "ALR" cache type introduced.

 

I kinda like the idea that somebody posted about having a different icon for fulfilling the ALR requirement. You could still get the smiley for finding ther cache even if you don't do the ALR, but you get another Icon for doing it. Maybe a smiley with a halo, or something similar.

 

Seems like a good compromise. The find is a find people get their smiiley, and the people that want to do the ALR get something, too.

Link to comment

Could you explain what is wrong with the Rosa parks analogy? I thought it a pretty accurate one.

 

Your brother stated "you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache."

If you never hunt for KBI's poetry cache, how can he delete your find?

 

If you never hunt for a cache that allows only 3 legged, purple skinned cachers to log, how is the owner of that stupid cache able to delete your find?

 

What I got out of his statement is that he feels it is not discrimination because they can avoid the cache.
If you avoid a cache, then what does it matter what the rules of that cache are? If you don't like the cache, don't want to jump through the hoops, don't qualify with enough finds, or don't feel like solving the puzzle, then don't do it.

 

I stated "By that logic, Rosa Parks didn't give the bus driver the power to discriminate against her until she chose to get on that bus"
And then I asked, "How could the bus driver have ever tried to tell her to sit in the back if she hadn't gotten on the bus?"

 

It is the same type of scenario. Rosa knew there were rules against her sitting in that section of the bus. She chose to sit there anyways.
Correct. She chose to sit there, and she also knew the world of carp she was about to face for doing so. She chose to sit there anyway. Go her! I'm glad she did. Race discrimination is a horrible thing and I'm glad I don't live in the world that she lived in.

 

Are you seriously implying that she was not discriminated against
I'm implying that she couldn't have been told to sit in the back if she hadn't gotten on the bus to begin with. I'm sure her life was filled with other areas of discrimination.

 

, or that the discrimination was somehow her fault for not complying with the rule?
Fault? No. In your analogy the bus driver is the cache owner, and Rosa Parks in the cacher that logs the find even though she didn't already have 99 finds first.

 

The reason I don't think it's a good analogy is that in the caching world, the bus driver has the power to delete her find without her being able to refuse to move. She sat there until the cops came, and it went to court, and the law was changed. If someone deletes your find because you didn't meet the requirements then there's nothing you can do about it other than whine in the forums.

 

I think tying the race issue into the ALR debate is an attempt to make it more emotional anyway. I was only being logical and discussing libertarian thinking in abstract terms.

 

All clear now?

Link to comment
I kinda like the idea that somebody posted about having a different icon for fulfilling the ALR requirement. You could still get the smiley for finding ther cache even if you don't do the ALR, but you get another Icon for doing it. Maybe a smiley with a halo, or something similar.

 

Seems like a good compromise. The find is a find people get their smiiley, and the people that want to do the ALR get something, too.

The logical conclusion of such a suggestion would be to have a different smiley for EVERY cache version: Puzzles, Multistages, Watercraft Required, Events (we already have that -- sort of), Micros, Five-stars, Four-stars, All-the-other-stars, Travel Bug Hotels ...

 

If the change could be applied evenly to single out ALL variations, I guess I could support it.

Link to comment
Adding logging requirements should change the cache type from traditional to puzzle. With a traditional cache, you go to the coords and find the cache. With a puzzle, there are any number of things you must do to find the cache. ALR's fit this description much better.

That's been suggested, and it's a good suggestion. I like it.

 

The definition would have to be reworded, however. That, or a new "ALR" cache type introduced.

 

I kinda like the idea that somebody posted about having a different icon for fulfilling the ALR requirement. You could still get the smiley for finding ther cache even if you don't do the ALR, but you get another Icon for doing it. Maybe a smiley with a halo, or something similar.

 

Seems like a good compromise. The find is a find people get their smiiley, and the people that want to do the ALR get something, too.

The solution that works right now is that ALR caches must be puzzles. With a puzzle cache, you don't get to find it until you've solved the puzzle (in most cases). For an ALR cache, the puzzle is figuring out what must be done to log the cache rather than just find it. It's close enough for me, and it fits that "catch all" wording in the puzzle description just fine.

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment

I still don't see how the original requirement is discriminatory. It requires the finder perform a task before seeking the cache. It is a task any geocacher can perform although it might take longer for some. To argue that this requirement is some how equivalent to forcing a person to give up a seat on the bus because of their race is rather big leap. Is is discriminatory to require a person attend medical school and do an internship before practicing medicine? What I find really hard to understand is how the same people who complain that the 99 find ALR is discriminatory are perfectly happy with much more restrictive requirements being placed on certain puzzle caches.

Link to comment

I still don't see how the original requirement is discriminatory. It requires the finder perform a task before seeking the cache. It is a task any geocacher can perform although it might take longer for some. To argue that this requirement is some how equivalent to forcing a person to give up a seat on the bus because of their race is rather big leap. Is is discriminatory to require a person attend medical school and do an internship before practicing medicine? What I find really hard to understand is how the same people who complain that the 99 find ALR is discriminatory are perfectly happy with much more restrictive requirements being placed on certain puzzle caches.

Isn't there also a prohibitive ALR cache out there? You can't have more than 100 finds to log it? That's even less fair than the needing at least 99 finds to log, and sure doesn't make it open to all geocachers.

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment
My libertarian philosophy leads me to remind you, however, that ALL caching is voluntary, and that you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache.

Look at it this way:

 

Suppose a restaurant owner tells you that you may NOT substitute a different side item for your tossed salad, that you should either accept the meal as described on the menu, or go someplace else.

 

Suppose a restaurant owner tells you that you don't qualify for the free pie until you buy 99 meals, as described on the menu ... but you're welcome to go someplace else and try.

 

Bad business practice? Maybe. Discriminatory? No. Should a law be passed requiring restaurants to respond to whatever the current mob rule thinking is on side items or desserts? Well, to be precise, that's the definition of pure democracy -- but that doesn't make it right.

 

You don't give the restaurant owner the power to "tell you how to eat" until you decide for yourself that that's where you're going to eat your lunch.

 

You don't give the cache owner the power to "discriminate against you" until you choose to hunt the cache.

Link to comment

 

The harm comes when someone insists on imposing that rule on the cache owner.

 

 

This whole argument makes my head spin.

 

Cache A makes a rule that you can't log his cache unless you do "X"

 

Cacher B says there should be a rule against making rules like that in caches.

 

Cacher A says That cachers should not make rules about how other cachers choose to play.

 

Cacher B says that cachers should not make rules about how others choose to play.

 

Of course, cacher B would not need to argue for his rule if cacher A hadn't made his rule.

 

So what is needed is a ruling on whether or not there should be a rule about making rules. And whether or not telling somebody else how they should play the game is enough reason for somebody to tell somebody else how they should play the game.

 

I'm confused, where was I?

 

What came first, the chicken or the egg? :anibad:

Link to comment

Can we move this thread toward finding a compromise in the middle? Is it possible to define what ALRs are acceptable so we can find the line at which they are acceptable?

 

I believe that if we were to be able to define ALRs in an acceptable manner and position them as Mystery or Puzzle caches nearly everyone will be happy.

Link to comment
The solution that works right now is that ALR caches must be puzzles. With a puzzle cache, you don't get to find it until you've solved the puzzle (in most cases). For an ALR cache, the puzzle is figuring out what must be done to log the cache rather than just find it. It's close enough for me, and it fits that "catch all" wording in the puzzle description just fine.

Woks for me as well -- except for that annoying little detail in the published definition of Mystery/Puzzle caches:

 

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

 

... The only commonality of this cache type is that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. ...

My ALR cache does not qualify as a Mystery/Puzzle cache under that definition. My ALR cache IS located at the posted coordinates, and there is nothing puzzling or mysterious about it -- the requirements are plainly stated.

 

If the definition were broadened or adjusted to allow for it, I would gladly request for my friendly neighborhood reviewer to officially change my cache to a Puzzle.

Link to comment

Can we move this thread toward finding a compromise in the middle? Is it possible to define what ALRs are acceptable so we can find the line at which they are acceptable?

 

I believe that if we were to be able to define ALRs in an acceptable manner and position them as Mystery or Puzzle caches nearly everyone will be happy.

 

Amen

Link to comment

I am going to honor TeamBarstool's request not to post a link to the original cache that spawned this thread, but I did just take a look at the cache page and it appears that this is a better than average geocache.

 

It is a regular cache near a trail and is secured with a combination. That last part is an interesting bit. Since the cache is locked, you must read the cache page in order to sign the log book. This takes away the 'commando caching' argument, in my opinion.

 

Anyway, I hope we can find a middle ground to the ALR issue.

Link to comment

What came first, the chicken or the egg? :rolleyes:

I have a thread about that subject over in the Off Topic Forum. I'd link to it but someone reading this post might not have given $30 to Groundspeak this year, and won't have access to the Off Topic topic.

 

I guess the web site is dicriminating against those that haven't paid. Maybe they're discriminating against the poor?

 

Don't you have to use a GPS in order to hide a cache? Wait a minute... the game discriminates against people that don't own GPS receivers.

 

How can I log a find on the web site if I don't know how to use a computer???? The website discriminates against those that aren't computer literate (or those that don't have friends that are)!!!!!

 

AAAHHHHH!!! I've just realized that the world we live in isn't completely fair and balanced for every single person in it. Some will be able to do things that other's can't. Who's fault is this?????

 

The bus driver I guess.

Link to comment
My libertarian philosophy leads me to remind you, however, that ALL caching is voluntary, and that you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache.

Look at it this way:

 

Suppose a restaurant owner tells you that you may NOT substitute a different side item for your tossed salad, that you should either accept the meal as described on the menu, or go someplace else.

 

Suppose a restaurant owner tells you that you don't qualify for the free pie until you buy 99 meals, as described on the menu ... but you're welcome to go someplace else and try.

 

Bad business practice? Maybe. Discriminatory? No. Should a law be passed requiring restaurants to respond to whatever the current mob rule thinking is on side items or desserts? Well, to be precise, that's the definition of pure democracy -- but that doesn't make it right.

 

You don't give the restaurant owner the power to "tell you how to eat" until you decide for yourself that that's where you're going to eat your lunch.

 

You don't give the cache owner the power to "discriminate against you" until you choose to hunt the cache.

 

You defeated your own analogy in that post. You state yourself that the scenario is not discriminatory.

 

Discrimination does not start at the point of enforcement. It starts when the rule is made. Challenging that discrimination does not cause it to exist- it was already there.

 

I think tying the race issue into the ALR debate is an attempt to make it more emotional anyway.

 

That is really not what I was trying to do, I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was trying to use the most clear cut example that I could think of as to why the idea of "I's not discrimination until somebody challenges it" is inaccurate.

 

The reason I don't think it's a good analogy is that in the caching world, the bus driver has the power to delete her find without her being able to refuse to move. She sat there until the cops came, and it went to court, and the law was changed. If someone deletes your find because you didn't meet the requirements then there's nothing you can do about it other than whine in the forums.

 

You lost me here. What does that have to do with the argument? Does the fact that the cache owner has more power over the logs somehow make it less discriminatory? Might makes right?

Link to comment
You state yourself that the scenario is not discriminatory.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

The hypothetical restaurant owner cannot tell you how to eat if you never set foot in his establishment.

 

The real-life ALR owner cannot tell you that your find log is no good if you simply bypass his cache in the first place.

Link to comment

What came first, the chicken or the egg? :rolleyes:

I have a thread about that subject over in the Off Topic Forum. I'd link to it but someone reading this post might not have given $30 to Groundspeak this year, and won't have access to the Off Topic topic.

 

I guess the web site is dicriminating against those that haven't paid. Maybe they're discriminating against the poor?

 

Don't you have to use a GPS in order to hide a cache? Wait a minute... the game discriminates against people that don't own GPS receivers.

 

How can I log a find on the web site if I don't know how to use a computer???? The website discriminates against those that aren't computer literate (or those that don't have friends that are)!!!!!

 

 

Wow, that is a lot of straw. ;)

Link to comment

What does that have to do with the argument? Does the fact that the cache owner has more power over the logs somehow make it less discriminatory?

No... it doesn't make it less discriminatory, it explains why I think it's a bad analogy. That's what my post was trying to do - in reply to your question.

 

I did understand the point you were making with the Rosa Parks analogy, and I agree with parts of it. But when I said that I thought it was a bad analogy, and you asked me why, I tried to explain. I'll try again.

 

Might makes right?
In the real world, might can get changed by someone sticking up for themselves, and the police, lawyers, etc. getting involved.

 

In the geocaching world, I can make a cache that only people with two heads can log a find on. And there's nothing in the world you can do about it. If I was that stupid to try it I'd get very few legitimate finds and I'd probably delete quite a few. Until the site changes some rules then it can still be listed as described. This site can make a change by adding more rules, but it's still my cache and I can remove it from the site and list it on my own if I want. Still no finds.

Link to comment
You state yourself that the scenario is not discriminatory.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

The hypothetical restaurant owner cannot tell you how to eat if you never set foot in his establishment.

 

The real-life ALR owner cannot tell you that your find log is no good if you simply bypass his cache in the first place.

 

Refer to you post where you made this statement:

 

you don't give the cache owner the power to discriminate against you until you choose to hunt the cache.

 

The restaurant scenario by your own admission is not discriminatory. It has nothing to do with discrimination. You are arguing apples and oranges.

 

Whather or not you choose to enter the restaurant you will not be discriminated against.

 

A discriminatory cache, on the other hand, is discriminatory whether you choose to hunt it or not. Choosing to log it does not make it discriminatory, it just challenges the discrimination that is already present.

Link to comment

What came first, the chicken or the egg? ;)

I have a thread about that subject over in the Off Topic Forum. I'd link to it but someone reading this post might not have given $30 to Groundspeak this year, and won't have access to the Off Topic topic.

 

I guess the web site is dicriminating against those that haven't paid. Maybe they're discriminating against the poor?

 

Don't you have to use a GPS in order to hide a cache? Wait a minute... the game discriminates against people that don't own GPS receivers.

 

How can I log a find on the web site if I don't know how to use a computer???? The website discriminates against those that aren't computer literate (or those that don't have friends that are)!!!!!

 

 

Wow, that is a lot of straw. :)

Indeed. But then again, maybe they're analogies. I noticed you didn't quote the entire post, or it would have been more obvious what I was saying. :rolleyes:

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment

Rosa parks analogy discussion...

 

I'm afraid I still don't understand what you are trying to say (I don't say that as a debating tactic, I truly don't get your point).

 

That's OK, though. It is turning into a bit of a side discussion anyways and I don't want that frog dude getting any more mad at us, so I will drop it.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
A discriminatory cache, on the other hand, is discriminatory whether you choose to hunt it or not. Choosing to log it does not make it discriminatory, it just challenges the discrimination that is already present.

Okay, I think understand what you mean now.

 

If I do understand correctly, them I'm moved to ask the obvious question: If you understand that you can choose to ignore a cache with "discrimination that is already present," then why do you CARE how the cache is set up? What's the point in even thinking about it? What larger point are you driving at? Did I miss something?

Link to comment
A discriminatory cache, on the other hand, is discriminatory whether you choose to hunt it or not. Choosing to log it does not make it discriminatory, it just challenges the discrimination that is already present.

Okay, I think understand what you mean now.

 

If I do understand correctly, them I'm moved to ask the obvious question: If you understand that you can choose to ignore a cache with "discrimination that is already present," then why do you CARE how the cache is set up? What's the point in even thinking about it? What larger point are you driving at? Did I miss something?

 

Why do I care? Because it is wrong. There are lots of things in life that, while they may not effect me personally, I still care about. I would venture to guess that most people have things that they care about that don't personally effect them.

Link to comment
Why do I care? Because it is wrong. There are lots of things in life that, while they may not effect me personally, I still care about. I would venture to guess that most people have things that they care about that don't personally effect them.

Then do you agree with CR that they should be "removed" from the game?

 

Let me ask the question a better way: Do you think something should be "done" about certain specific ALRs, or ALRs in general -- or are you willing to tolerate them?

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

Discriminatory caches? Absolutely.

 

ALR caches? No.

 

I'l rephrase to make more sense to the rephrasing of the question LOL.

 

Yes, I do think that discriminatory ALRs should be disallowed. ALRs in general I have no problem with. Some can be pretty fun, others not so fun, but I do agree that my defenition of fun is not neccesarily the same as the next guy's. It is only when it crosses the line to discrimination that I have a problem with them.

 

I do think deleting otherwise legitamate logs is kinda silly, but I wouldn't want to make a rule that you couldn't do it.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment

Eh, you beat me to it.

 

Discriminatory caches? Absolutely.

 

ALR caches? No.

In that case, there might be room in there for you to convince me to agree with you.

 

Aw, man! You just had to leave that little crack there for me, didn't you?

 

My wife is gonna be mad at you! It is our anniversary and now I am going to be thinking "I got him to wiggle a little- I gotta stay on him" all night instead of sucking up to her the way I am supposed to be!

Link to comment
My wife is gonna be mad at you! It is our anniversary and now I am going to be thinking "I got him to wiggle a little- I gotta stay on him" all night instead of sucking up to her the way I am supposed to be!
From a guy who forgot his last anniversary and may never live it down, turn off your computer and step away from it. You'll be happier.
Link to comment

Are we finally to a point where we can discuss specific potential ARLs?

 

Here's my original post to this thread:

Hmmm...

 

How about a cache that you can only log as found if you have over 1000 forum posts?

 

Only females need apply?

 

Only Jeep drivers?

 

Only Christians?

 

Only those of Scottish lineage?

 

Only if you log while hopping on your right foot (don't have a right foot? Tough nuts!)?

 

Charter members only?

Link to comment
Aw, man! You just had to leave that little crack there for me, didn't you?

 

My wife is gonna be mad at you! It is our anniversary and now I am going to be thinking "I got him to wiggle a little- I gotta stay on him" all night instead of sucking up to her the way I am supposed to be!

Okay, then how's this:

 

I think we should be a bit more precise in our language. To "discriminate" is a very general term. There is good discrimination, there is bad discrimination, and there is discrimination which is somewhere in the middle. It's all subjective, of course.

 

I think most of us would agree that a cache which discriminated based on race would not be OK. That's bad discrimination -- in fact it clearly violates the rules published by Groundspeak.

 

I think most of us would also agree that a cache in which the owner discriminated based on whether he saw the cacher's signature in the physical logbook would definitely be OK. That's good discrimination -- in fact it is clearly encouraged in the guidelines published by Groundspeak.

 

Other discriminations lie somewhere in the middle. Should a cache owner give out puzzle hints based on whether he likes the tone of your emailed request? Should a cache owner archive his cache because he thinks it's not getting enough positive feedback? Should a cache owner delete your log if you ignore his requirement to "close the gate on your way out of my cow pasture?" Should a cache owner delete your log if you ignore his requirement to wait until you've logged 99 other caches? Each of these forms of discrimination falls somewhere along the continuum between "horrible" and "praiseworthy."

 

I own an ALR cache. It requires the finder to submit their find log in the form of a poem. My requirement leads me to discriminate between the logs which are obvious attempts at poetry versus the ones where the cacher made no such attempt. So far it's been obvious to me which is which, but it IS a subjective judgment. It requires discrimination. Is that good discrimination or bad discrimination? That's a matter of opinion, of course, but my main defense, as always, is that nobody is FORCED to write the poem -- they need only ignore my cache. I can't discriminate against your rhyming skills unless you volunteer for the experience.

 

I believe that a cache can be "wrong" due to inapprpriate discrimination. I also believe that a logging requirement doesn't inherently make a cache "wrong."

 

There are good and bad caches in every category, "good" vs "bad" being a matter of personal opinion and taste. Just because one ALR cache is offensive to some doesn't mean all ALR caches must go -- and it sounds like you and I mostly agree on this.

Link to comment

Are we finally to a point where we can discuss specific potential ARLs?

 

Here's my original post to this thread:

Hmmm...

 

How about a cache that you can only log as found if you have over 1000 forum posts?

 

Only females need apply?

 

Only Jeep drivers?

 

Only Christians?

 

Only those of Scottish lineage?

 

Only if you log while hopping on your right foot (don't have a right foot? Tough nuts!)?

 

Charter members only?

 

This is another reason I oppose ALRs outright. I believe I mentioned this in another thread.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

I think it's perfectly clear where I draw the line, if you're able to sign the logbook then you can log a find. Beyond this the line can become so fuzzy that it would make the "Virtual Wow Factor" pale.

Link to comment

 

I believe the arguments here revolve around exactly the same issue that has been central to the discussions of pocket caches, multiple find allowances, and other controversial logging behaviors.

 

Here's the problem: there are two groups of cachers, each of whom has a different definition of the meaning of the "found it" log.

  • Group A believes that a "found it" log is a record of a fact -- the fact that the cacher found the cache and signed the log.
  • Group B believes that a "found it" log is a reward that is given by the owner of the cache to seekers for finding their cache.

Unfortunately, those two definitions are not compatible. From the perspective of people in Group A, additional logging requirements make no sense. For people in Group B, lots of things seem natural, including additional logging requirements, multiple finds awarded to people who do extra tasks, giving finds when the seeker didn't actually find the cache, pocket caches, etc.

 

 

The only way I see for this issue to be resolved to satisfy both camps here is for a new kind of cache log. One that acknowledges that the finder performed some additional task.

 

Changing the type to a puzzle or mystery cache still does not allow for the accidental finder (for whatever reason) to accurately maintain his stats on this site.

 

If this one issue can be resolved, all the others mentioned in this thread will go away.

 

Thank you Fizzy for giving words to what I was trying to say.

Link to comment

Are we finally to a point where we can discuss specific potential ARLs?

 

Here's my original post to this thread:

Hmmm...

 

How about a cache that you can only log as found if you have over 1000 forum posts?

 

Only females need apply?

 

Only Jeep drivers?

 

Only Christians?

 

Only those of Scottish lineage?

 

Only if you log while hopping on your right foot (don't have a right foot? Tough nuts!)?

 

Charter members only?

 

I would support any discriminatory or exclusionary caches being disapproved.

 

All of those on that list would fit that guideline (even the foot hopping one- at especially if it is phrased that way)

 

All geocaches should be available for all geocachers, with the exception of PMO caches. By available to all, I mean that any ALR's must be something that can be accomplished or at least attempted by any geocacher within the framework of the cache itself or in the logging of that cache.

 

(Don't worry, sweetie isn't home yet. I have the Acorn Squash in the oven, the salmon ready to go on the grill, and the wine chilling)

Link to comment

The only way I see for this issue to be resolved to satisfy both camps here is for a new kind of cache log. One that acknowledges that the finder performed some additional task.

How is that different than making the task a request, and letting the finder mention in the log that he did the task?

 

Are you suggesting getting credit twice? One for the find, and another for the task?

Link to comment

The only way I see for this issue to be resolved to satisfy both camps here is for a new kind of cache log. One that acknowledges that the finder performed some additional task.

How is that different than making the task a request, and letting the finder mention in the log that he did the task?

 

Are you suggesting getting credit twice? One for the find, and another for the task?

 

If that is what it takes. The traditional yellow smilie would be to acknowledge the fact that the cache was found. The panty-smilie would be to acknowledge that some additional task was completed.

 

There wouldn't be much of a difference for people in camp A, but those in camp B could point to the number of panty-smilies they have to show just how much fun they are having.

Link to comment

I'm not going to list the cache here since I have not heard back from the cache owner yet.

But this requirement really seems to me not to be in the spirit of the game

 

"If you don't have at least 99 caches, then your find will be deleted on this site." :rolleyes:

 

The owner has made it a members only cache. Thats just cool with me. I pay my dues.

 

If I can look at the page,find the cache,sign the log,and maybe even do something crazy like trade up, Why should my find be deleted? ;)

 

All I saw in the guidelines was the following:

 

"Cache Maintenance

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements."

 

So I guess this meets the guidelines , But is it right?

 

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with it. We have quite a few ALR caches in the area, and I find most of them to be fun, and a pleasant change from the norm!

 

There is one that I haven't done yet, since I am not cultured enough to be able to figure out the rules of Haiku, since that is what the form of the online log must be in.

 

I could still find it, but I personally choose not to, since I want to comply with the owners wishes. I must admit to having a bit too much of an OCD to "ignore" it, since I would still know it was there! So, it just sits there mocking me for the moment. :D

 

However, remembering back to pre-100 finds, I would have taken it as a challenge to meet the requirements. (I don't think I would have made it my century cache, unless there was something I felt was special about the location itself though.)

 

That's my 2- cents. Please keep the change if you didn't find it worth the price of admission! :)

Link to comment
The solution that works right now is that ALR caches must be puzzles. With a puzzle cache, you don't get to find it until you've solved the puzzle (in most cases). For an ALR cache, the puzzle is figuring out what must be done to log the cache rather than just find it. It's close enough for me, and it fits that "catch all" wording in the puzzle description just fine.

Woks for me as well -- except for that annoying little detail in the published definition of Mystery/Puzzle caches:

 

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

 

... The only commonality of this cache type is that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. ...

My ALR cache does not qualify as a Mystery/Puzzle cache under that definition. My ALR cache IS located at the posted coordinates, and there is nothing puzzling or mysterious about it -- the requirements are plainly stated.

 

If the definition were broadened or adjusted to allow for it, I would gladly request for my friendly neighborhood reviewer to officially change my cache to a Puzzle.

Yes, the guidelines do say that, but I've heard of a few puzzle caches that are located at the posted coords. Solving the puzzle gives you the same coords as on the cache page.

Link to comment
Yes, the guidelines do say that, but I've heard of a few puzzle caches that are located at the posted coords. Solving the puzzle gives you the same coords as on the cache page.

I have too. If such a cache doesn't qualify as a "puzzle," then I guess you could say it qualifies as a "mystery."

 

The first time I saw one of those it gave me a big laugh.

 

I don't see a problem there, but I do think the existing definition would need to be reworded to allow for including ALR caches.

Link to comment

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the same people who are complaining about caches with ALRs will continue to complain about them as puzzle/mystery caches...

 

"I found the box, regardless of completing the requirements, so it's a legitimate find and whomsoever shall delete my smiley will be like unto the beast that walketh like a man but in reality has the appearance and heart and private parts of a naked mole rat"

That argument will still be issued by people who don't like ALRs, regardless of how they are classified...

 

Jamie - NFA

Edited by NFA
Link to comment

Can we move this thread toward finding a compromise in the middle? Is it possible to define what ALRs are acceptable so we can find the line at which they are acceptable?

 

I believe that if we were to be able to define ALRs in an acceptable manner and position them as Mystery or Puzzle caches nearly everyone will be happy.

 

I'd like to thank everybody with on topic input both pro & con. :rolleyes:

 

 

I believe the arguments here revolve around exactly the same issue that has been central to the discussions of pocket caches, multiple find allowances, and other controversial logging behaviors.

 

Here's the problem: there are two groups of cachers, each of whom has a different definition of the meaning of the "found it" log.

  • Group A believes that a "found it" log is a record of a fact -- the fact that the cacher found the cache and signed the log.
  • Group B believes that a "found it" log is a reward that is given by the owner of the cache to seekers for finding their cache.

Unfortunately, those two definitions are not compatible. From the perspective of people in Group A, additional logging requirements make no sense. For people in Group B, lots of things seem natural, including additional logging requirements, multiple finds awarded to people who do extra tasks, giving finds when the seeker didn't actually find the cache, pocket caches, etc.

 

 

The only way I see for this issue to be resolved to satisfy both camps here is for a new kind of cache log. One that acknowledges that the finder performed some additional task.

 

Changing the type to a puzzle or mystery cache still does not allow for the accidental finder (for whatever reason) to accurately maintain his stats on this site.

 

If this one issue can be resolved, all the others mentioned in this thread will go away.

 

Thank you Fizzy for giving words to what I was trying to say.

 

I'm realizing on this and a few other forum topics that I'm in group A. If I can get the coords and sign the log I don't think a find should be deleted. I'd be happy with tweaking the puzzle type for them to fit. I think that some cache owners would think twice about a silly (mandatory) ALR if they knew alot of people could and would filter them out on a PQ. I don't feel I should have to bypass a " traditional " cache.

 

The only way I see for this issue to be resolved to satisfy both camps here is for a new kind of cache log. One that acknowledges that the finder performed some additional task.

How is that different than making the task a request, and letting the finder mention in the log that he did the task?

 

Are you suggesting getting credit twice? One for the find, and another for the task?

 

If that is what it takes. The traditional yellow smilie would be to acknowledge the fact that the cache was found. The panty-smilie would be to acknowledge that some additional task was completed.

 

There wouldn't be much of a difference for people in camp A, but those in camp B could point to the number of panty-smilies they have to show just how much fun they are having.

 

credit twice? at the discretion of the cache owner? I'm I the only one that sees what a huge can of worms this would open? Maybe if the panty-smilies (or my fav- signal jumping thru a flaming hoop) were listed like the benchmark icons and didn't add to a find total. Not that I care about others find count but reading the forums shows that alot of people do.

 

There seems to be alot of passion on both sides. I'd love to see some other ideas that might be able to resolve this to most everyones satisfaction.

 

Jeff Barstool

Link to comment

The only way I see for this issue to be resolved to satisfy both camps here is for a new kind of cache log. One that acknowledges that the finder performed some additional task.

How is that different than making the task a request, and letting the finder mention in the log that he did the task?

 

Are you suggesting getting credit twice? One for the find, and another for the task?

 

If that is what it takes. The traditional yellow smilie would be to acknowledge the fact that the cache was found. The panty-smilie would be to acknowledge that some additional task was completed.

 

There wouldn't be much of a difference for people in camp A, but those in camp B could point to the number of panty-smilies they have to show just how much fun they are having.

And if you could also clarify why you're calling it a "Panty Smile". I guess I missed something earlier (I was out of town for a week but still tried to read the forums from time to time).

Link to comment

I'm opposed to the name "panty smileys" as my wife and I already make use of this term, and my use of, and/or acquiring, said "panty smileys" in another manner, or from other people, might result in legal action or physical harm being visited upon me by the above-mentioned wife... :rolleyes:

Edited by NFA
Link to comment

The only way I see for this issue to be resolved to satisfy both camps here is for a new kind of cache log. One that acknowledges that the finder performed some additional task.

How is that different than making the task a request, and letting the finder mention in the log that he did the task?

 

Are you suggesting getting credit twice? One for the find, and another for the task?

 

If that is what it takes. The traditional yellow smilie would be to acknowledge the fact that the cache was found. The panty-smilie would be to acknowledge that some additional task was completed.

 

There wouldn't be much of a difference for people in camp A, but those in camp B could point to the number of panty-smilies they have to show just how much fun they are having.

Okay, someone explained where "panty smiley" came from, so I'm not confused about that anymore.

 

So Sissy thinks that a ALR cache owner that doesn't want to make his task optional, would be satisfied if there were 2 "finds" handed out instead of 1, and the task would be optional. Hmmm...

 

She also suggests that credit be given twice, even though only one cache is found. How many dozens of times have we heard CR (and others) complain about multiple logs for event caches? This "solution" would create more "problems" than it eliminates.

 

A much easier way has been suggested several times. If the cacher could somehow identify that there is a ALR on a cache BEFORE he searches for it, he'd know to avoid it if he didn't want to do the task.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...